I have not kept it a secret that I am in love with tools. I also have let it be known that I have a soft spot for old Stanley tools, although that is not etched in stone. It all boils down to a tool meeting my three point criteria; if it is well made, if its design interests me, and if I know I will use it. If a particular tool meets those three stipulations, I won’t hesitate to pass the bucks across the table to own it.
I just bought a Stanley #66 Beader with 8 blades and 2 fences; in other words, the complete set. I bought it from momandpopcybershop on eBay and paid $4.00 more for it than I would have paid for a brand-new one from Lie-Nielsen and $110.00 more than the newly designed one offered by Lee Valley. I paid “through the nose” for this tool and I’m thrilled to death that I have it.
I have been looking at beaders for some time now, even going as far as placing the new Veritas one on my Lee Valley Wish List. So why, all of a sudden, would I end up buying this particular tool?
I bought it for two reasons. The first is that it met the three point criteria that I have set for myself when it comes to buying a tool. The second reason I bought it was that I could quickly and easily confirm what the seller was saying about the tool. On their listing, Mom and Pop had a heading in large and bold text that stated the tool was “Guaranteed 100% Complete”. Further on in their description they stated that you could “probably date this example to around 1909”.
One click on a bookmark and I was in The Superior Works site, another click and I was on the page where the #66 was listed and a bit of a scroll had me reading when Stanley started producing this tool, and what changes they made to it over its production and the dates when they made those changes. The results of a short read told me that, yes, this tool was produced with 8 blades and 2 fences, so their claim to being complete was correct. I learned that Stanley started producing this tool with a nickel finish in 1900, and they added the eighth blade – the blank one, in 1909, so Mom and Pop’s statement that it was a 1909 model could be true. It could also have been made around 1941 as well, as this particular tool in this particular configuration was produced between 1909 and 1941 with no serial number or other marking to narrow the date of production down further. Armed with that easily obtainable information, I now knew what I was buying and without hesitation I started bidding, determined to get it.
So why is it that I can’t do this when I see a Stanley chisel I want? Or a Stanley Bevel? Why is it that I can go on a number of different sites and find out everything there is to know about Stanley planes, but finding out about any other type of tool made by this company is an exercise in futility?
As a result of all of this, I started to put together a plan to set up a new web site named, “everythingstanleyexceptplanes.com”. The domain name is available. So why not go for it? I’ll tell you why - Content – or specifically, the lack thereof. To put all of this information together so the site would be on the same level as Patrick's Blood and Gore would take a lifetime, not to mention the family jewels to finance the purchase of the research material needed. So what to do?
What about a collaborative site? Would any of you that have information about a Stanley non-plane tool be interested in sharing it? Is there enough of you out there that would be interested in something like this?
Let me know.
Peace,
Mitchell
It is an interesting idea and you are probably on to the best practical solution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, getting people to contribute is difficult and would be so even for an established site that already had content.
My thought is that if you would work with a forum (Sawmill Creek comes to mind), and continually nudge people to post something on your site when the question comes up or go back through old posts and add a post suggesting they add to yours, you might get somewhere.
This could be in a wiki form or in a page form where people can add comments that you or the page "owner" can incorporate into the article - similar to Google base.
I don't know if this violates forum rules or not, but if it does, you might be able to work around it somehow.
Also, you can follow all of the woodworking blog posts and when it comes up, leave a comment nudging people to contribute.
It would be a lot of work.
Instead of Patrick's blood and gore, you could have Mitchell's peace and quiet.
A starting place for this would be the work that Stan Faullin did at http://www.tooltrip.com/tooltrip9/index.htm
ReplyDeleteSome of the links are missing /broken but there is some good stuff there. Just to get a complete set of instruction sheets woull d be a worthwhile exercise
Good idea. There is some of that info you seek, scatter here in there, buts its far from being complete, and some has even dissapeared by now: arggg what happened to Ralph Brendler's Stanley Gage Page ??
ReplyDeleteCheck out this site it has some limited type studies on some other Stanley's layout tools
http://www.oldtooluser.com/index.htm
Mitchel - great idea but a lot of work. I have no real suggestions only an observation. When I search sites for information I get really, really frustrated when Links that are supposedly current do not work or have been discontinued. I like some of the suggestions made by the previous commentators.
ReplyDeleteGreat minds think alike, Luke. The Wikipedia format was exactly what I had in mind. I'm not sure about beating the drum in the forums, though. I was hoping about the - building a better mousetrap and have the world beat a path to my door - sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of adding instruction sheets is something I didn't think of, Jeremy. Good idea, although you just doubled the size of the server needed to carry this thing.
That's the point, Bob. So much of this stuff has disappeared, lost in a past woodworker's junk drawer.
Your right, Brian, taking a project on of this size would be huge, hence Luke and my agreement that the Wikipedia format is the way to go. Building a structure that correlates the data supplied by the viewers through forms would still be a considerable project, but once completed, I would only have to maintain it, not fill it up.
I’ll have to ponder this a while longer to try and determine if it is worth the investment of a considerable amount of my time.
Peace, guys,
Mitchell